Cancel multiple open limit orders at once by supplying their IDs, removing unwanted trades from Polymarket in a single step.
Cancel multiple open limit orders concurrently via their unique IDs.
Args: order_ids (str): A comma-separated sequential string of order IDs to be canceled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_ids | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether cancellation is irreversible, what happens if some IDs are invalid or already filled (partial-batch semantics), whether it is atomic, or what auth/permissions are required — all material for a batch mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The operative sentence is front-loaded and tight; the Args block is boilerplate that largely restates the schema property name. Small waste, but the core statement is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a batch cancellation with zero annotations, the absence of failure/partial-success semantics and permission requirements leaves the definition only minimally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema only declares a bare string, so the description's 'comma-separated sequential string of order IDs' is the only source of format information and is essential to call the tool correctly. It could add an example or ID format specifics, but it meaningfully compensates for the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Cancel multiple open limit orders') plus the mechanism ('via their unique IDs'), which implicitly separates it from cancel_all_orders and cancel_order. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'multiple ... via their unique IDs' phrasing implies the situation (you hold a set of IDs), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over cancel_order or cancel_all_orders, nor any prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.